profile-type testimony

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

In Commonwealth v. Day, 409 Mass. 719, 569 N.E.2d 397 (1991), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the admission of testimony regarding the "child battering profile," as distinguished from testimony describing the "battered child syndrome," was reversible error due to its irrelevance and inherent prejudicial impact upon the defendant.

The so-called expert physician's elitist testimony impailed single mothers and their partners. He proclaimed that there was a pattern, a pattern which showed that partners of single mothers sometimes offend against children while mothers are at work and that single mothers have partners who bring drugs into the household.

The SJC held that Newberger's testimony improperly suggested to the jury that the defendant physically abused the child simply because he was the mother's partner and because he was left with the responsibility of caring for the child on the day on which she died and because evidence indicated that the defendant had used drugs.

======

...It is well established, however, that the use of “pedophile
profile” testimony as substantive evidence of guilt constitutes error. Flanagan v. State, 625
So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1993). In the instant case, while the prosecutor did not attempt to introduce
pedophile profile testimony into evidence, her comment in closing argument was nonetheless
prejudicial because, in addition to suggesting Hudson had committed prior illegal sexual acts
involving children, it also improperly suggested a profile-type argument, namely, that if Hudson
has certain traits which fit the offender profile, he must have abused the victim.